Message-Id: <6.2.1.2.2.20050715040057.03ee5830@mail.jefsey.com>
Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2005 05:31:37 +0200
To: "Randy Presuhn" <randy_presuhn@mindspring.com>
From: "JFC (Jefsey) Morfin" <jefsey@jefsey.com>
In-Reply-To: <000601c588d6$86c89b80$7f1afea9@oemcomputer>
References: <000f01c588b6$a311b800$7f1afea9@oemcomputer>
	<6.2.1.2.2.20050714233819.0402d030@mail.jefsey.com>
	<000601c588d6$86c89b80$7f1afea9@oemcomputer>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
Cc: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Seeking reviewers for language tag registry docs in WG last call
Precedence: list
Sender: ietf-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: ietf-bounces@ietf.org

On 02:45 15/07/2005, Randy Presuhn said:
>Please do not be misled by the domain name of http://rfc3066.org/review.htm
>That site is not affiliated with the ltru WG or the ietf-languages@iana.org
>mailing list that performs the language tag review function described in 
>RFC 3066.

This is right. There are two doctrines.
- an exclusive one: to have a new RFC restricting the possibilities of RFC 
3066 in term of language support
- an inclusive one: to keep RFC 3066 as a flexible base for innovation, and 
to accep the Draft in parallel

>I think prospective reviewers' time would be much better spent looking at
>the actual documents under WG last call, rather than trying to make sense of
>the stuff at  http://rfc3066.org/review.htm

The "stuff" concerns considerations on IETF/ISO/UN relative 
authoritativeness, standard disclaimer on political aspects inovlved in 
multilingualism, compatibility between the IANA structure and ISO Registry 
standards, need of retro-compatibility with new propositions, etc.

During a WGLC all the last-call issues must be addressed by the WG. This is 
for me the only way to clarify these points while waiting the WG Charter to 
be analysed.

>The documents under WG last call are
>http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ltru-registry-09.txt
>http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ltru-initial-02.txt
>
>We'd prefer to have your comments on the documents themselves,
>rather than reactions to Jefsey's sometimes over-heated polemic.

??? the question is to know if the general points _not_ mentionned into the 
Draft should be added to it, or belong to a separate Framework document?

Very dull and practical.
jfc  


_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf